Talk:Rapture Timeline
Suggestions This article is getting a bit long and maybe difficult to keep track of. In order to keep it looking nice I have some suggestions about any future edits: This article is for specific information as it occurs in the 1906-1968 time line. This means that you should avoid putting descriptions of what the "Something In the Sea" website looks like on a certain day. That information would go on the There's Something in the Sea page. For instance: Good information: -the date on which a letter was written or something was created -the date on which Mark Meltzer received certain information or made important discoveries -dates on which important events occurred Bad Information: -description of what papers/notes were shown on the SITS site on a specific day -speculation about what the editor thinks a certain object/paper mean Again, these are just suggestions. Feedback is appreciated.--Gardimuer 16:46, October 14, 2009 (UTC) Also, it might be a good idea to begin breaking up any information from SITS Phase 2 into categories based on month.--Gardimuer 16:51, October 14, 2009 (UTC) Timing error? I think there's a bit of a discrepancy. The newspaper found in Mark's office detailing the discovery of an adrift S.S. Nellie Bly has the date as 1968. However, the timeline here details that event in 1969. I don't know if it's because SitS jammed so much into the latter part of 1968, a simple mistake in the amount of time that had passed when adding events to the ARG itself, a dating error on SitS's part or if it's something with the wikia. Should we just leave it as is or make some kind of effort to sort things out? Rapture-Stingers-QB 21:01, April 9, 2010 (UTC) :As is stands, the year on the newspaper appears to be an error. There are other documents on the site in 1969, if I remember correctly. We list how it should be, though... :That brings me back to my whole argument that Cult of Rapture listed one date for a new article, but it was actually another... Aw, I should stop remembering that. ~''Ṃᶒɠą§ɔîéɳčę' [[User talk:MegaScience|{ '''talk }]]'' 21:06, April 9, 2010 (UTC) ::Alright, gotcha. I went back to the site for nostalgia and due to the possibly Bioshock-related letters being sent out. I remember the date discrepancy on SitS bugged me the time it first showed up and today just reopened that itch. Rapture-Stingers-QB 21:14, April 9, 2010 (UTC) :::Actually, I am pretty sure that there are no documents labeled with a year in the entire Phase Three of SITS, besides those final two documents which mark it as 1968. The only reason we thought it extended to 1969 is that one of the folders in Mark's archives on the boat used to be labeled "Jan 4-13" Here is the reasoning I left on another talk page: :::"The date SITS ended is confusing, mostly because of some oversights the website developers made when planning it. Up until January 29 all of the folders in Mark's archives on the boat were labeled by date. (You can see the original date labeling in the headings on the Mark Meltzer Writings page.) Before the labels on the folders were changed there was clearly a folder marked "Jan 4-13" for the beginning of January. With this evidence it becomes clear that the website developers originally intended that Mark's timeline of days match our own in the real world, but for some reason they changed this at the last minute so it would fit with the idea of Mark arriving in Rapture before the events of the second game. (BioShock 2 could have occurred in 1969, actually. The intro cinematic says "10 years later", but considering that the cinematic happened during the 1958 New Year's Eve Party the events of the game could be on January 1st.) :::If we accepted that Mark's timeline is parallel to our own and ending in February of 1969 then it would be easy to tell what date each event occurred on, but revising the timeline to make it fit with ending in 1968 could involve checking every single document of SITS to see which ones can be pinned down to specific months or days. That is the main reason the timeline hasn't been changed yet." ~'Gardimuer' [[User talk:Gardimuer|{ ʈalk }]] 05:01, April 10, 2010 (UTC) As opposed to ....? Not trying to be a d!ck, but this is a "chronological" timeline, as opposed to ... some other kind of timeline? Should it be "Bioshock 1-2 Timeline", so that "Bioshock Infinite" might have a different one (if they aren't same universe), or if someone wants a "Game Development Timeline"? : 13:14, August 20, 2010 (UTC) :I think it's opposed to the points in the game where you learn each bit of Rapture's history. For example, the Civil War and Jack's creation all take place before the events of BioShock, but you only discover those bits through flashbacks and Audio Diaries. Same with BioShock 2: you only get to learn about how Lamb survived for the last ten years by picking up certain Diaries. --Willbachbakal 13:56, August 20, 2010 (UTC) : Infinite has nothing to do with the Rapture Universe (or any other real one if you go by their ignoring basic physics) I dont see anything from Infinite here anyway. ::You have a good point. Considering BioShock Infinite is (most likely) going to take place in an entirely different universe of cannon (according to some interviews with Irrational Games representatives) this article should be renamed something like "Rapture Timeline" to avoid confusion. ~'Gardimuer' [[User talk:Gardimuer|{ ʈalk }]] 01:35, August 21, 2010 (UTC) :: Bioshock Infinite? Someone wrote in the edit comments "It is in the same universe. Ken Levine said so at Gamescom." I'm pretty sure we have a link saying the opposite. What's the deal on including Infinite in this timeline? Or renaming it as mentioned above? : 18:49, August 26, 2010 (UTC) The page's name Since BioShock Infinite has now its own Chronological Timeline's page, this page should be renamed "Chronological Timeline (BioShock & BioShock 2)" or "Chronological Timeline (Rapture)" or something else so there won't be any confusions. --Pauolo 20:36, August 26, 2010 (UTC) :My personal suggestion is that we name each timeline by its setting to avoid the annoyance of a long string of game names and parenthesis in the title. I suggest "Rapture Timeline" be the name of this one, and "Columbia Timeline" be the name of the one for BioShock Infinite. ~'Gardimuer' [[User talk:Gardimuer|{ ʈalk }]] 21:34, August 26, 2010 (UTC) ::I agree with you, that seems the better way to name it. Pauolo 21:37, August 26, 2010 (UTC) :::I agree too. Perhaps a disambiguation page called "Timeline" with links to all of the above would help. ::: 00:59, August 27, 2010 (UTC) Am I the only one who noticed this? If Rapture is so secret and Andrew Ryan stresses secrecy within the city, how do all who came to Rapture know of it in the first place? Did Ryan like put in an ad in the paper or something saying "Hey, I built a really cool underwater city, so everyone who is smart and rich come on in!" --- He (and his organization) searched out people who he thought would be interested and didnt disclose too much detail until it was more certain about them. Many people who came to Rapture still didnt realize it was as much as Ryan had implied. Those people then knew other like minded people. Incongruously, Ryan's letting a collectivist like Lamb in made no sense and his vetting process should have been more than enough to turn up her beliefs to have him immediately reject her (but the almighty plot cant have that, so blah...) Testxyz (talk) 09:37, December 1, 2013 (UTC) Please revise the TIMELINE content Most of the SitS minor details should be moved to a seperate timeline as they clutter out the more significant events. It might be interesting and all but it has little to do with the history of Rapture Also the Minervas Den events apparently are missing "The events of Burial at Sea begin. Private Investigator Booker DeWitt is hired by Elizabeth to find his daughter Sally." Timeline needs markers to indicate events from BAS which may not be considered Canon. Is there some way to colorize the SitS content (to differentiate it) as its shear mass clutters out significant BS1/BS2 events ??? Testxyz (talk) 11:32, November 19, 2013 (UTC) :What the heck is wrong with you? Butchering a talk page with lines or whatever wikia code I never use isn't gonna get you an answer. On the contrary, asking active editors will have more results. To answer your question about SitS, well the page's title can induce in error, as it considers all events happening in the timeline where Rapture exists, not just concerning directly the city, hence why the SitS events are being referenced here. In order to limit the page's length, I will see a way to add a hide/show button for SitS-related content starting from 1967. That way it will be clearer I guess. :Now for Burial at Sea, I'd honestly prefer not to add anything related to this DLC on this page and the Storyline one, at least until the second episode gets released. I have my theory regarding if this story is canon or not to the first two games, but well it's just an opinion, not fact (you can read it at the end of Darkman4's talk page if you want). :Pauolo (talk) 13:36, December 1, 2013 (UTC) :This browser based editor often does weird things on reediting (Ive seen it do this before with an initial Publish looking one way and after edit (no change) and Publish again it has decided to rearrange/remove/add line seperations, etc...) and I was actually cleaning up extra blank lines from one of my previous postings. Looked OK to me after I did a Publish so maybe it also looks different depending on the browser you use. :Note - I had also edited the section ABOVE this edit section and added a Userstamp, so who knows if that had anything to do with what you see on your browser. :The History dif view is also misleading as it doesnt show a red block (left side) where an entire line was removed and leaves the big gap on the right with no shading differential. :As for : :"The events of Burial at Sea begin. Private Investigator Booker DeWitt is hired by Elizabeth to find his daughter Sally." :Thats IN the Timeline right now at December 31 1958 and my comment is about whether the BAS stuff likewise might need some special indicator. :Testxyz (talk) 16:25, December 1, 2013 (UTC) ::Well you should only edit in "source" mode, the other one is what causes those "Rich editor" errors you might have heard about on wikia and truly sucks. Still I understand you rely on this mode for now, but go check some pages in source mode, it's not that difficult to learn by examples. ::Now for that line referencing BaS and the other one in the 80s which you missed, there is a way to color texts so that we can point at what's happening outside the main timeline. You just need to go check how to do that in wikia code, there's plenty of tutorial for that. ::Pauolo (talk) 17:22, December 1, 2013 (UTC) United States drops an atomic bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima. Sofia Lamb survives the bombing but loses all her friends in the explosion: So she was a prisoner there or a collaborator ? The way prisoners were treated in such a situation could possibly go a ways towards explaining her demented philosophy (radiation poisoning warping her mind might also be a factor). Oops: 1958 - Elizabeth possessed by Booker runs into Sofia Lamb and 'accidentally' guns her down. Suddenly a Timelord arrives to hand out a Infraction Ticket for interfering with timelines of past Games. They board the TARDIS and Elizabeth finds herself in the 'tear-proof' lockup on Gallifrey. Testxyz (talk) 09:02, February 25, 2014 (UTC) 1958 Big Daddies are commissioned for creation by Andrew Ryan to carry out maintenance on the city May actually have existed well before this time. As 'Protectors' is more evidence specified in-game as correct, but for maintenance BD (or rather some other term, as BD name was coined for LS bond) may have been around for several years (would be a way to employ those driven criminally insane by ADAM abuse - rather than have them warehoused at public expense - at least that being the public story told by Fontaine Futuristics). Special plasmids/ttonics for pressure in what are basically canvas diving suits